RANT: Bishop, Onslaught, & the future of Marvel
David J. Warner
This is what my horoscope said today:
"Bottling up deeply felt emotions can be a health hazard. Air your
grievances with a loved one face-to-face. Complaining to other people
will accomplish nothing."
I suppose this means I should send a copy of this post to Marvel, huh?
-----------------------------SPOILER SPACE------------------------------
One professor, eight students, two lab mice, one roll of duct tape....
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
***NARF!***
The X-Men Pinky & The Brain
OF MICE AND MUTANTS
A one-of-a-kind fan-fiction crossover tale
by David J. Warner
*******COMING TO THE INTERNET JULY 3RD!*******
---------------------------END SPOILER SPACE----------------------------
First, the Bishop thing. Let's call this "Scott Lobdell's plastering of
the obvious, part deux."
As some of you may recall, whenever the subject of Bishop's parents has
come up on RACMX, I tend to rattle off the same Bishop quote that
Lobdell wrote in UXM #318. For those of you that don't remember, it
goes a little something like this:
"M is perfect -- beautiful, brilliant, rich, seemingly in complete
control of her powers. It's almost...*unnerving*. And Everett...?
He reminds me of *me* in my youth."
Thanks to Bishop's little "Mother?!" comment in GenX #14, most people
have made the connection between M and Bishop. Yet nobody else was
willing to admit that the line about Everett meant anything. I think
most people are in denial. They didn't really see any reason, nor want
any reason, to believe Synch was Bishop's father.
If the Onslaught:X-Men one-shot doesn't prove that it's true, nothing
will.
Take a look at what Bishop does at the end of this story. At the moment
when Onslaught is about kill the X-Men, Bishop steps in front of
Onslaught's psionic energy blast and absorbs it all. The big O is
humongously shocked that Bishop can absorb that much energy, as are we
all, to be honest.
Now harken back to the scene in the airport in Generation X #1. Take a
look at what Synch does when Emplate fires an absorbed energy blast at
Banshee and Jubilee. He ***steps in front of the blast and absorbs it
all.***
Jubilee: "Careful, dude. Can you synch your bod to that much power?"
Synch: "Apparently, yes."
Folks, I've been saying this for months now, but nobody wants to listen.
Synch and M are Bishop's parents. Scott Lobdell has been planning this
for a long time, and the fact that nobody else here can see this coming
right up Greymalkin Lane must mean he's a better writer than I give him
credit for being.
And this pisses me off. It pisses me off because Marvel let Lobdell
create a whole new X-book (Generation X) for NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO
EXPLAIN AWAY THE TATTOO ON BISHOP'S FACE! It pisses me off because
Lobdell created what could have been a great book, then let his burning
desire to play God with the entire X-Universe ruin his ability to write
a decent story for the book he created. It pisses me off because I
actually put some emotional interest into the GenX kids (not to mention
time and money), and now this book is going to fall by the wayside as a
result of Onslaught and get lost in a sea of plot movements over which
it has no control.
I read what they had planned for the main Marvel Universe in the wake
of Onslaught, and quite frankly, I'm disgusted. "How big is Onslaught
and its finale? Big enough to turn the X-Men, X-Force, Generation X and
the rest of the mighty mutants into true outsiders, driven from the X-
Mansion into a world that doesn't just fear and hate them -- it wants
them dead."
And people wonder why I want to reboot the Reclamation Squad.
I find it hard to believe that thirty-three years of X-book history have
come to this. Call me naive if you must, but it astounds me to think
that a planet of five billion people can all believe that a minority of
less than one percent of one percent is so completely incapable of good
that genocide is the only solution.
The X-Men were created as an allegory for a prejudiced world. Think of
the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
GOP is hit hard when Colin Powell decides not to run for president.
The GLB community was as fringe as fringe could get in 1963. Try
telling stories like "Rent" and "The Birdcage" in 1963 America.
Mutants, meanwhile, have made absolutely no social, political or
economical advances in the Marvel Universe in 33 years of storytelling.
Now, Marvel is in the process of creating the most petty, ignorant,
pessimistic, prejudiced, hate-filled Fourth Reich of a world in almost
all of comicdom.
"World Without Heroes," it's called. If I wanted to read about a world
without heroes, I'd subscribe to the USA Today. I read comics to escape
from this sort of thing. I became an X-Men fan because I liked what
they stood for -- an end to racial and social prejudice, the idea that
people of all kinds can somehow put aside their fears and hatreds and
learn to live with one another. Finding out that they have failed makes
me wonder what this says about our own world, what these writers believe
is our own fate. I refuse to accept this.
This may make some people shudder, but after Onslaught is said and done,
the only Marvel book to which I would consider subscribing is the
upcoming Choi/Lee/Williams Fantastic Four reboot. Perhaps it's because
I've only had a passing interest in the Fantastic Four in the past, and
seeing their story in a new light, separate from this dark, Dantean
world Marvel is creating, would actually make for an interesting read.
Plus, I have a little more confidence in the CLW team as storytellers
(Fire From Heaven aside) than I do with just about anyone that's still
at Marvel.
That's why I'm still in this game. Great artwork is one thing, but for
me, the story makes the artwork that much better. If there's no story,
it's just a bunch of pretty pictures -- fun to look at for a while, but
ultimately having nothing to say. The sad thing is that Marvel does
have something to say -- that there is no hope left for the world, fear
and hatred will win in the end, and we will destroy ourselves for
nothing more than the simple fact that we are different from each other.
This is not the world in which I live. This is not the world in which I
introduced the Reclamation Squad. This is not the world into which I
brought Manchild back from the dead. They deserve better. We as
readers deserve better.
When Chris Claremont left Marvel, he said simply, "These are not my X-Men
anymore." I think he spoke for all of us.
"World Without Heroes." It's no world for me.
--
------------------- |*************THE BUCKTOWN TIMELINE HOMEPAGE*************
David J. Warner | A Generation X(tm) fan-fiction thread
manc...@netcom.com | gone COMPLETELY out of control
------------------- |***ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ma/manchild/bucktown.html***
.............................................................................
...............Jay and Silent Bob will return in "Chasing Amy"...............
MarcusJN
>This may make some people shudder, but after Onslaught is said and done,
>the only Marvel book to which I would consider subscribing is the
>upcoming Choi/Lee/Williams Fantastic Four reboot. Perhaps it's because
>I've only had a passing interest in the Fantastic Four in the past, and
>seeing their story in a new light, separate from this dark, Dantean
>world Marvel is creating, would actually make for an interesting read.
>Plus, I have a little more confidence in the CLW team as storytellers
>(Fire From Heaven aside) than I do with just about anyone that's still
>at Marvel.
After Onslaught, I'm not sure where I will stand on the mutant front.
I used to collect anything "X". But I had to cut back because it was
getting a little expensive and all the X-books weren't worth it
anyway. I can honestly say that once this is over I know the comic I
will definitely keep collecting is the Incredible Hulk. Ever since
his multiple personalities were combined, he became interesting to me.
I dropped it right after the Swamp Thing storyline and then picked it
back up when the present artist (I can't remember his just now) took
over. I don't know about the Reboot for FF, Avengers, and Capt.
America. It seems like they're going to re-hash old stories and if
that's the case then I definitely won't be picking them up. I'll just
have to what and see.
Mice
As an amatuer Marvel Historian, David, and quite the ranter meself...
THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL, MAN!
AND, as a side ranting note, NO WAY am I going to mother that....that...
living plot hole of a man! NO! (I sim as the loverly M, to clear that
up)
Mice, who will be away from her computer until June 28. STRENGTH, people,
strength. I shall come back and I shall write, and, oh, how I shall write!
And, I'm waiting with bated breath for Pinky...
Sam Powell
David J. Warner wrote:
<<competent rant snipped>>
> The X-Men were created as an allegory for a prejudiced world. Think of
> the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
> ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
> GOP is hit hard when Colin Powell decides not to run for president.
> The GLB community was as fringe as fringe could get in 1963. Try
> telling stories like "Rent" and "The Birdcage" in 1963 America.
What revisionist-history, public school did you go to, Dave? Were you
alive 33 years ago? Here's a little history lesson. It's on something
called the Constitution, an amendable document. Here's the 15th
amendment to that constitution:
Article. XV.
[Proposed 1869; Ratified 1870]
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Now, notice the dates on this amendment. That was over a hundred years
ago. Not 33. What irks me here, is the net is a global community,
and bullshit like this might be believed by people in other countries
who don't have to study American politics. I'm not going to say racism
didn't exist in the 60's. It clearly did, just as it does today. But
we're making progress.
Please research your facts a little better.
--
____ _ __ _ _
/ ___) | '__\ | | | |\ _,,,---,,_
\__ \__ _ _ __ | __/__ __ _____| | | /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
__/ / _` | \/ \ | |/__\ V V / -_) | | |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
(___/\__,_|_|_|_| |_|\__/\_/\_/\___|_|_|'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
__...@ltis.loral.com____(yeah I stole the cat. So?)_______________
Mike Lavin
In article <31BC59...@ltis.loral.com>
>> the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
>> ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
>
>alive 33 years ago? Here's a little history lesson. It's on something
>called the Constitution, an amendable document. Here's the 15th
>amendment to that constitution:
>
> Article. XV.
>
> [Proposed 1869; Ratified 1870]
>
>Now, notice the dates on this amendment. That was over a hundred years
>ago. Not 33. What irks me here, is the net is a global community,
>and bullshit like this might be believed by people in other countries
>who don't have to study American politics. I'm not going to say racism
>didn't exist in the 60's. It clearly did, just as it does today. But
>we're making progress.
>
>Please research your facts a little better.
>
was referring to the fact that many African-Americans were effectively
denied their 15th Amendment rights until the mid-1960s. The
Civil Rights movement of the early sixties focused as much on voting
rights as it did on issues of segregation, lynchings, and other
overt forms of racism and deprivation of human rights.
How were African-Americans denied the right to vote? Opponents
to the 15th Amendment controlled the voter registration process and
imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on. More subtly,
they used gerrymandering of legislative districts to weaken the
the political power of African-Americans who did vote. Such
abuses were remedied by several landmark Supreme Court cases of
the early sixties, culminating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I will agree with Sam Powell that the original poster's
statement could be misleading, but Mr. Powell's is equally so.
The 15th Amendment did not end institutionalized racism any
more than the 13th or 14th did.
Ob-Xbooks:
Regarding David Warner's dismay that the Marvel Universe has
exhibited little progress in mutant rights over the past 30
years, I would suggest that the present MU is fairly believable.
To me, the best way to understand it is to read part two of
the "Marvels" mini-series (which was just reprinted, I believe).
Humanity hates mutants not because they are different, but
because they are so powerful. Humankind is jealous of
mutant powers, but more importantly, they *fear* them.
Fear of what those powers can accomplish, fear that humanity
is weak by comparison, and fear that the human race will be
supplanted by a new stage in human evolution. So why doesn't
humanity fear the Avengers and the FF? Non-mutant heroes
in the MU obtain their powers through freak accidents or
through technology--intermittent events or human accomplishments.
Mutants, and all they imply, are frightening to many humans.
Magneto's former role in heightening the differentiation
between human and mutant only increased the tension.
Frankly, it has taken Marvel a long time to develop such
a believable stance, and they could certainly do a better
job making it more realistic (Greydon Creed? Give us a
break!), but it is a defendable supposition. And let's
remember that 33 years have not passed since the advent of
the X-Men; in Marvel-time it is more like 10-12 years.
Greenstool
kalvin yu
Sam Powell wrote:
David J. Warner wrote:
<<competent rant snipped>>
> The X-Men were created as an allegory for a prejudiced world. Think of
> the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
> ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
> GOP is hit hard when Colin Powell decides not to run for president.
> The GLB community was as fringe as fringe could get in 1963. Try
> telling stories like "Rent" and "The Birdcage" in 1963 America.
What revisionist-history, public school did you go to, Dave?
EXCUSE ME, BUT I hope that wasn't a dig at public schools...an uncalled for low-blow if it was.
Were you
alive 33 years ago? Here's a little history lesson. It's on something
called the Constitution, an amendable document. Here's the 15th
amendment to that constitution:
Article. XV.
[Proposed 1869; Ratified 1870]
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Now, notice the dates on this amendment. That was over a hundred years
ago. Not 33. What irks me here, is the net is a global community,
and bullshit like this might be believed by people in other countries
who don't have to study American politics. I'm not going to say racism
didn't exist in the 60's. It clearly did, just as it does today. But
we're making progress.
Please research your facts a little better.
I THINK DAVE'S POINT WAS IN FACT REALITY-BASED VERSUS WHAT IS WRITTEN ON AN OLD PIECE OF PAPER. HAS IT BEEN A REALITY IN U.S. HISTOR=
Y THAT, JUST BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITION, ALL PEOPLE COULD VOTE SINCE 1870? DO THE WORDS "WOMEN" OR "AFRICAN AMERICANS"=
RING A BELL? WRITING IDEALISTIC PROSE IS ONE THING, IT'S QUITE ANOTHER TO PRACTICE IT. BLACK AMERICANS WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOT=
E, BUT HOW MANY ACTUALLY DID IN THE BEGINNING WHEN THEIR LIVES WERE THREATENED IF THEY SHOWED UP AT THE VOTING BOOTHS? EVEN TODAY IN=
ORANGE COUNTY, I CAN SEE THE DISGUST IN SOME PEOPLE WHEN A BLACK MAN CAME TO VOTE AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED=
ABOUT IF NON-AMERICANS READ THIS THREAD IS THAT IF SOMETHING IS WRITTEN ON A LEGAL DOCUMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, THAN IT'S GOOD AS GOLD=
IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT. THIS IS EXACTLYWHAT THE X-MEN ARE ABOUT: STRIVING TO ACHIEVE THE GOOD IN US ALL DESPITE LIVING IN AN E=
NVIRONMENT WHICH EITHER OVERTLY OR COVERTLY TRY TO SUPPRESS ANY SINGLED-OUT GROUP OF HUMAN BEINGS. IT'S WHAT THIS NATION IN PARTICU=
LAR HAS BEEN BATTLING SINCE IT'S BEGINNING. IF I'VE TOTALLY MISSED THE BOAT IN REGARDS TO YOUR POST, SAM, PLEASE REITERATE SO US PUB=
LIC SCHOOLED MORONS CAN UNDERSTAND.
--Kalvin
David J. Warner
>> the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
>> ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
>> GOP is hit hard when Colin Powell decides not to run for president.
>> The GLB community was as fringe as fringe could get in 1963. Try
>> telling stories like "Rent" and "The Birdcage" in 1963 America.
>
>alive 33 years ago? Here's a little history lesson....
Having now been accused of revisionist history twice in the last 24
hours, allow me to make a formal apology and correction for my
statements.
Black people *did* have the right to vote since the passing of the 15th
amendment. It was the various Jim Crow laws of the states that made it
difficult if not practically impossible for blacks to register to vote,
thereby denying them a sound place in the American political universe
until the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Movement aided in the repeal of
these prejudiced laws.
My thanks to Mr. Powell and Robyn Goldstein for setting me straight at a
time when I got too carried away, and my apologies if I offended anyone
else with my misinformation. I was wrong. I'm sorry. Please don't
thwap me on the head again.
HOWEVER, even with the facts as stated above, my point does not budge --
the point being that Marvel is about to present us with a world in which
billions firmly believe that genocide is the only way to deal with a
troublesome minority, and that there is no hope for the future of mutants
within the Marvel Universe. This, I say again, is unrealistic,
disgustingly pessimistic, and just plain wrong. You cannot convince me
that 33 years of storylines have deservingly come to this, and I am
having serious doubts about my continued involvement as a patron of
Marvel's work.
So there.
--
------------------- |*************THE BUCKTOWN TIMELINE HOMEPAGE*************
David J. Warner | A Generation X(tm) fan-fiction thread
manc...@netcom.com | gone COMPLETELY out of control
------------------- |***ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ma/manchild/bucktown.html***
..............................................................................
................Jay and Silent Bob will return in "Chasing Amy"...............
Dwight Williams
Mike Lavin (mrl...@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:
> In article <31BC59...@ltis.loral.com>
> Sam Powell <s...@ltis.loral.com> writes:
>
>>David J. Warner wrote:
>>
>><<competent rant snipped>>
>>
>>> The X-Men were created as an allegory for a prejudiced world. Think of
>>> the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
>>> ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
>>
>>What revisionist-history, public school did you go to, Dave? Were you
>>alive 33 years ago? Here's a little history lesson. It's on something
>>called the Constitution, an amendable document. Here's the 15th
>>amendment to that constitution:
>>
>> Article. XV.
>> [Proposed 1869; Ratified 1870]
>>
> (text deleted)
>
>>Now, notice the dates on this amendment. That was over a hundred years
>>ago. Not 33. What irks me here, is the net is a global community,
>>and bullshit like this might be believed by people in other countries
>>who don't have to study American politics. I'm not going to say racism
>>didn't exist in the 60's. It clearly did, just as it does today. But
>>we're making progress.
>>
>>Please research your facts a little better.
>
> I am no expert on Civil Rights history, but I believe Mr. Warner
> was referring to the fact that many African-Americans were effectively
> denied their 15th Amendment rights until the mid-1960s. The
> Civil Rights movement of the early sixties focused as much on voting
> rights as it did on issues of segregation, lynchings, and other
> overt forms of racism and deprivation of human rights.
>
> How were African-Americans denied the right to vote? Opponents
> to the 15th Amendment controlled the voter registration process and
> imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on. More subtly,
> they used gerrymandering of legislative districts to weaken the
> the political power of African-Americans who did vote. Such
> abuses were remedied by several landmark Supreme Court cases of
> the early sixties, culminating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
>
> I will agree with Sam Powell that the original poster's
> statement could be misleading, but Mr. Powell's is equally so.
> The 15th Amendment did not end institutionalized racism any
> more than the 13th or 14th did.
As a Canadian, I'll leave discussion of this aspect of the thread better
versed in US Constitutional law and history...
> Ob-Xbooks:
>
> Regarding David Warner's dismay that the Marvel Universe has
> exhibited little progress in mutant rights over the past 30
> years, I would suggest that the present MU is fairly believable.
> To me, the best way to understand it is to read part two of
> the "Marvels" mini-series (which was just reprinted, I believe).
>
> Humanity hates mutants not because they are different, but
> because they are so powerful. Humankind is jealous of
> mutant powers, but more importantly, they *fear* them.
> Fear of what those powers can accomplish, fear that humanity
> is weak by comparison, and fear that the human race will be
> supplanted by a new stage in human evolution. So why doesn't
> humanity fear the Avengers and the FF? Non-mutant heroes
> in the MU obtain their powers through freak accidents or
> through technology--intermittent events or human accomplishments.
> Mutants, and all they imply, are frightening to many humans.
> Magneto's former role in heightening the differentiation
> between human and mutant only increased the tension.
>
> Frankly, it has taken Marvel a long time to develop such
> a believable stance, and they could certainly do a better
> job making it more realistic (Greydon Creed? Give us a
> break!), but it is a defendable supposition. And let's
> remember that 33 years have not passed since the advent of
> the X-Men; in Marvel-time it is more like 10-12 years.
I'd say 15-16 years myself, but I'd also point out that if you read
between the lines on various characters' backstories from Charles Xavier
to Amelia Vought to Rev. Wm. Stryker to Moira MacTaggart to Bruce
Banner(Remember his father Brian's behaviour towards him and the excuse he
constructed to justify it?), it seems as though the mutant dilemma had been
building for at least 10-20 years prior to the X-Men's first "official"
public battle.
One wonders what caused _that_ prologue? How'd they know what might be
coming down the road aside from, say, Namor or Toro of the Invaders?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
c@rn@ge
In <manchildD...@netcom.com> manc...@netcom.com (David J.
Warner) writes:
>And this pisses me off. It pisses me off because Marvel let Lobdell
>create a whole new X-book (Generation X) for NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO
>EXPLAIN AWAY THE TATTOO ON BISHOP'S FACE! It pisses me off because
>Lobdell created what could have been a great book, then let his
burning
>desire to play God with the entire X-Universe ruin his ability to
write
>a decent story for the book he created. It pisses me off because I
>actually put some emotional interest into the GenX kids (not to
mention
>time and money), and now this book is going to fall by the wayside as
a
>result of Onslaught and get lost in a sea of plot movements over which
>it has no control.
No other purpose???? This title, more than ANY OTHER X-TITLE,
stands alone. EVERY OTHER X-TITLE
(Excalibur/X-Man/X-Men/X-Force/X-Factor/Cable/Uncanny
X-Men/take-your-pick) is so closely intertwined with each other MUCH
MORE so than Generation X. Onslaught has made an impact in most, if not
ALL, of the aforementioned books, but NOT IN GENERATION X!! Generation
X has also given readers an insight into Banshee/White
Queen/Jubilee-as-a-"veteran". Some of what you say DOES make sense and
I agree with some of it, this is NOT part of it!
>I find it hard to believe that thirty-three years of X-book history
have
>come to this. Call me naive if you must, but it astounds me to think
>that a planet of five billion people can all believe that a minority
of
>less than one percent of one percent is so completely incapable of
good
>that genocide is the only solution.
It astounds me as well. But doesn't it astound you that people, nay
MUTANTS, are TIME-TRAVELING and that there are shape-shifters??? About
the "genocide is the only solution??" statement; Adolf Hitler
effectively exterminated 1% of the German population (as well as 6
million other "non-Germans"). Were they "not capable of good"? They
were SCAPEGOTS, not unlike our heralded heroes collectively known as
the X-MEN! ASTOUNDING!
>"World Without Heroes," it's called. If I wanted to read about a
world
>without heroes, I'd subscribe to the USA Today. I read comics to
escape
>from this sort of thing. I became an X-Men fan because I liked what
>they stood for -- an end to racial and social prejudice, the idea that
>people of all kinds can somehow put aside their fears and hatreds and
>learn to live with one another. Finding out that they have failed
makes
>me wonder what this says about our own world, what these writers
believe
>is our own fate. I refuse to accept this.
I agree again. (Frightening, isn't it?) Comics are an escape from
harsh realities, but on the other hand, some readers might complain
that they want "more realistic" comics that "they can relate to". It's
all about money and the readers that supply have *some* power.
c@rn@ge
c@rn@ge
In <pgettle-1206...@165.166.15.5> pge...@groupz.net (Paul
Gettle) writes:
>
>In article <4pl96d$h...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
>car...@ix.netcom.com(c@rn@ge) wrote:
>
>> In <manchildD...@netcom.com> manc...@netcom.com (David J.
>> Warner) writes:
Lobdell
>> >create a whole new X-book (Generation X) for NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN
TO
>> >EXPLAIN AWAY THE TATTOO ON BISHOP'S FACE! It pisses me off because
>> >Lobdell created what could have been a great book, then let his
>> burning
>> >desire to play God with the entire X-Universe ruin his ability to
>> write
>> >a decent story for the book he created. It pisses me off because I
>> >actually put some emotional interest into the GenX kids (not to
>> mention
>> >time and money), and now this book is going to fall by the wayside
as
>> a
>> >result of Onslaught and get lost in a sea of plot movements over
which
>> >it has no control.
>>
>> stands alone. EVERY OTHER X-TITLE
>> (Excalibur/X-Man/X-Men/X-Force/X-Factor/Cable/Uncanny
>> X-Men/take-your-pick) is so closely intertwined with each other MUCH
>> MORE so than Generation X. Onslaught has made an impact in most, if
not
>> ALL, of the aforementioned books, but NOT IN GENERATION X!!
Generation
>> X has also given readers an insight into Banshee/White
>> Queen/Jubilee-as-a-"veteran". Some of what you say DOES make sense
and
>> I agree with some of it, this is NOT part of it!
>
the
>past ish and a half? Wasn't it because Chamber's been suffering from a
>severe decline in his powers... since oh, what was it? Oh yeah...
since
>Gateway teleported Chamber away and Chamber got to hear Onslaught's
>Psi-voice, and it sounded horribly familiar, but Onslaught had put
mental
>blocks in to keep Jono from placing the voice?
There hasn't been an appearance of Onslaught/Post in Generation X
(go ahead, someone, prove me wrong. They probably have appeared, but
I'm too lazy to search every issue...). Generation X didn't make a big
deal over the last issue before AoA like
Cable/X-Men/Uncanny/maybe-others-I-don't-read. So they ARE more
"independent" than *most* other X-books.
c@rn@ge
Paul Gettle
> In <manchildD...@netcom.com> manc...@netcom.com (David J.
> Warner) writes:
> >And this pisses me off. It pisses me off because Marvel let Lobdell
> >create a whole new X-book (Generation X) for NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO
> >EXPLAIN AWAY THE TATTOO ON BISHOP'S FACE! It pisses me off because
> >Lobdell created what could have been a great book, then let his
> burning
> >desire to play God with the entire X-Universe ruin his ability to
> write
> >a decent story for the book he created. It pisses me off because I
> >actually put some emotional interest into the GenX kids (not to
> mention
> >time and money), and now this book is going to fall by the wayside as
> a
> >result of Onslaught and get lost in a sea of plot movements over which
> >it has no control.
>
> No other purpose???? This title, more than ANY OTHER X-TITLE,
> stands alone. EVERY OTHER X-TITLE
> (Excalibur/X-Man/X-Men/X-Force/X-Factor/Cable/Uncanny
> X-Men/take-your-pick) is so closely intertwined with each other MUCH
> MORE so than Generation X. Onslaught has made an impact in most, if not
> ALL, of the aforementioned books, but NOT IN GENERATION X!! Generation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> X has also given readers an insight into Banshee/White
> Queen/Jubilee-as-a-"veteran". Some of what you say DOES make sense and
> I agree with some of it, this is NOT part of it!
Then why have Skin and Chamber been driving down to the mansion for the
past ish and a half? Wasn't it because Chamber's been suffering from a
severe decline in his powers... since oh, what was it? Oh yeah... since
Gateway teleported Chamber away and Chamber got to hear Onslaught's
Psi-voice, and it sounded horribly familiar, but Onslaught had put mental
blocks in to keep Jono from placing the voice?
--
-- Paul Gettle (pge...@groupz.net)
Karl Kindt IV
> Humanity hates mutants not because they are different, but
> because they are so powerful. Humankind is jealous of
> mutant powers, but more importantly, they *fear* them.
> Fear of what those powers can accomplish, fear that humanity
> is weak by comparison, and fear that the human race will be
> supplanted by a new stage in human evolution. So why doesn't
> humanity fear the Avengers and the FF? Non-mutant heroes
> in the MU obtain their powers through freak accidents or
> through technology--intermittent events or human accomplishments.
> Mutants, and all they imply, are frightening to many humans.
> Magneto's former role in heightening the differentiation
> between human and mutant only increased the tension.
>
> Frankly, it has taken Marvel a long time to develop such
> a believable stance, and they could certainly do a better
> job making it more realistic (Greydon Creed? Give us a
> break!), but it is a defendable supposition. And let's
> remember that 33 years have not passed since the advent of
> the X-Men; in Marvel-time it is more like 10-12 years.
You could see the recent mutant hatred as "backlash." I think it was
feminist Susan Faludi who wrote a book entitled that a few years ago: It
discussed the alleged backlash against women's rights in our modern day. I
disagree wholeheartedly with Faludi's book as far as why the backlash is
occurring and how it is portrayed.
What you are seeing in the Marvel universe could be seen as the result of
forced integration. Some people do not like it, right or not.
--
"Reality is not optional." "Science fiction doesn't predict
--Thomas Sowell the future; it determines it,
colonizes it, preprograms it in
Karl Kindt IV the image of the present."
€ "EE-MALE"-> ava...@icon-stl.net --William Gibson
€ "YOU-ARE-'ELL"-> http://www.icon-stl.net/~avatar
McBer
Alirght, alright, I know this has been an overly re-hashed topic,
but I take this opertunity to <rant><rave><send letters filled with
Spam><fling Spam at Marvel writers> ;] 'Cause I have just decided that
the Marvel comics are no longer worth reading. FanFics however... Marvel
has done its best (worst?) with the AOA and now Onslaught, I just wonder
if their core readers still read... (I know two who will no longer get
within miles 'o a comic) It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who
thinks Marvel has gone to far... thanx ;]
Martha (and cat)
Oglesby Gerald N
Bishop isn't the child of Monet and Synch. Rather he and Shard are the
the brother and sister of M, Pennance, and Emplate. What I think is that
the horror that Emplate feels so bad about ist that his power shifted
Bishop, Shard and their Mother into the future. So Bishop grew up there
fighting his brothers hoards.
--
NICK OGLESBY
"Less than a god, more than a man."
Phil Lee
About Marvel's creation of a universe that want's to tear all mutants
into small pieces: It's not the motivation required on the part of the
majority of the MU universe to hate mutants that bothers me - it's why
they would really care in the first place.
I think it's not terribly unrealistic to think that people would fear
mutants. Almost at random, people with amazing powers are appearing that
are difficult to detect, and potentially difficult to control. Also, you
have the fear of being supersceded at the top of the food chain, as it
were. These may not be terribly good reasons to hate someone, but since
when did mankind need a good reason to hate?
What bothers me is why anyone would really care. Q: What percentage of
the global population are mutants; and not just mutants, but mutants with
significant powers and influence? A: A really, really, really, tiny,
practically insiginificant percentage. Sure, mutants are high profile.
Sure, you've got a few guys like Magneto that can represent an
uncontrolable major threat. But, is that a sound reason for rabid hatred
by the Earth's teeming millions? Hell no.
Basically, Marvel has created a population group of truly miniscule
proportions, that are getting an amazing amount of attention for no
reason whatsoever. Sentinels are neat enemies, but I still don't see how
they'd be funded soley as an anti-mutant measure. (Funded for lots of
other reasons I can see, and I'll even accept that they were funded in
secret without anyone knowing, etc, etc. It's still kinda silly.) The
original DOFP story line, with the campaign slogan "Do you know what your
children are?" is really cool to read about - but why would such a small
percentage of people create such a major campaign issue.
I'll put up with Marvel's explenation. I can see how irrational public
fear can be made into a major issue of daily life (i.e. the Red Scare, as
just one example). I don't see how it could survive through 30 years of
history, or whatever feeble attempt at a timeline Marvel has created.
Finally, I accept that Marvel's world of mutant terror makes for some
interesting storytelling - as long as things change. Without some sort
of change, without things being different eventually, without altering
the status quo of the Marvel Universe at least occasionally, there isn't
really much point in reading.
Finally, there's the issue of hope. In the search of angst-driven
storytelling (and I do use the word 'storytelling' rather loosely there),
we've been given a universe where there is nothing but hate, fear,
loathing, terror, etc, etc, etc. What about hope for a better future?
And, by hope, I don't mean occasional references to Xavier's nebulous
dream. Right now, all hope whatsoever is being drained from the
X-books. And not just the rest of the world, but within the X-men
themselves. See Onslaught:X-men for a perfect example of this. (But,
for ghod's sake, don't buy the damn thing - stand in your local comic
shop and flip through it until someone nags you about not being in a
library, just as long as you don't plunk down the $4.)
Who knows? Maybe the Onslaught storyline will become a catalyst for
change in the Marvel Universe, bringing new potential to the X-men,
uncovering glimers of silver lining in skies that have been cloud for far
too long, but I really doubt it. For a bad analogy, compare the current
Marvel mentality to the White Witch from _The Lion, the Witch, and the
Wardrobe_. How long has it been winter in the Marvel Universe?
Phil
--
Phil Lee - ph...@email.unc.edu - http://sunsite.unc.edu/phil - FnordChan
"I do have a cause though. It's obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
Isaac Lewis
gog...@oak.cs.clemson.edu (Oglesby Gerald N) wrote:
>Bishop isn't the child of Monet and Synch. Rather he and Shard are the
>the brother and sister of M, Pennance, and Emplate. What I think is that
>the horror that Emplate feels so bad about ist that his power shifted
>Bishop, Shard and their Mother into the future. So Bishop grew up there
>fighting his brothers hoards.
Question:
In UXM #288, Bishop says, "My grandmother told me stories.." Doesn't
this directly contradict the assumptions Marvel has raised about
Bishop and Shard being orphans? I thought that LeBeau (Gambit?)
raised Bishop (unless Bishop was part of a futuristic version of
Weapon X--that would explain a few other contradictions/memory
lapses/berserker rages of Bishop's).
Karim Hakim Amin
Why can't people stick to the freakin subject!!!
Phil Lee (ph...@email.unc.edu) wrote:
: About Marvel's creation of a universe that want's to tear all mutants
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ http://www.wpi.edu/~kamin /
/ You can do the unimaginable only if you put your mind to it. /-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel McEwen
Presumably something happened to Bishop's family somewhere along the line
that placed him in LeBeau's care. This would make both versions right.
Bishop had a family, they died, and he went with LeBeau. Now, M and
Synch could easily be Bishop's grandparents rather than his parents.
Age-wise, this makes much more sense.
--
Daniel
djmc...@earthlink.net
Anthony Rickey
Dear Mr. Powell:
The net could use not only a little more editing to make certain that facts
are checked, but a little more charity from its fact checkers. To wit:
Sam Powell wrote:
>
> David J. Warner wrote:
> > The X-Men were created as an allegory for a prejudiced world. Think of
> > the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33 years
> > ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today, the
> > GOP is hit hard when Colin Powell decides not to run for president.
[snip]
> What revisionist-history, public school did you go to, Dave? Were you
> alive 33 years ago? Here's a little history lesson. It's on something
> called the Constitution, an amendable document. Here's the 15th
> amendment to that constitution:
[snip-available in almost any textbook, if you're interested]
> Now, notice the dates on this amendment. That was over a hundred years
> ago. Not 33. What irks me here, is the net is a global community,
> and bullshit like this might be believed by people in other countries
> who don't have to study American politics. I'm not going to say racism
> didn't exist in the 60's. It clearly did, just as it does today. But
> we're making progress.
Certainly, blacks had the *de jure* right to vote, but not until various
court cases of the civil rights era did those rights come to be de facto enforced.
Various "Jim Crow" laws (as well as a poll tax) were used to keep blacks from voting.
To say that many blacks did not have the right to vote might be extreme, but saying
they didn't have the ability, or were barred from voting through
legislative and judicial interpretation of the 15th Ammendment, would not be. Mr.
Warner was perhaps not specific enough, but interpreted loosely (since it wasn't the
crux of his subject), it wasn't wrong enough to be termed "bullshit." His point was
the same as yours--the United States has indeed made progress against racism, which
is not adequately reflected in the X-books.
> Please research your facts a little better.
If we can make requests, please post your corrections a little more politely,
if not posting them to alt.flame.
Anthony Rickey
Replies to E-mail, please--this is a bit off-topic.
Sam Powell
Anthony Rickey wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Powell:
>
> The net could use not only a little more editing to make certain that facts
> are checked, but a little more charity from its fact checkers. To wit:
<<snipped stuff that David Warner and I wrote, email me if you want it.>>
> Certainly, blacks had the *de jure* right to vote, but not until various
> court cases of the civil rights era did those rights come to be de facto enforced.
> Various "Jim Crow" laws (as well as a poll tax) were used to keep blacks from voting.
> To say that many blacks did not have the right to vote might be extreme, but saying
> they didn't have the ability, or were barred from voting through
> legislative and judicial interpretation of the 15th Ammendment, would not be. Mr.
> Warner was perhaps not specific enough, but interpreted loosely (since it wasn't the
> crux of his subject), it wasn't wrong enough to be termed "bullshit." His point was
> the same as yours--the United States has indeed made progress against racism, which
> is not adequately reflected in the X-books.
I'm sorry, but I see only one way of interpreting the statement "Black people didn't
have the right to vote in 1963". I took this statement to be false and in a global
climate, where many people may not be very aware of U.S. history (including many U.S.
students), I find this kind of statement dangerous. I am sick of being made to feel
like a villain because I am a white heterosexual male, and I will point out mis-statements
of fact when I see them. Yes, I could have toned it down a little, but I also could
have toned it up a lot. I think this medium is used best when people express how they
feel about things, and when I wrote that I felt pissed off. I'm sorry to David if he
took this hard, and I have read where he retracted what he said and explained it further,
and it made a lot of sense.
To get this back on topic, it is interesting to see what they will do with the handyman
in Generation X #17-8. It seems he's sorry he participated in the killing of Dennis
Hogan, and seems sorry not only about the killing but the whole state of mutant paranoia.
It's as if he blames mutants for making him participate in one of their murders.
I can easily explain why the X-Universe doesn't more closely resemble the advances we've
made in race relations in 'reality'; stories like DOFP sell a lot better!
>
> > Please research your facts a little better.
>
> If we can make requests, please post your corrections a little more politely,
> if not posting them to alt.flame.
I disagree that my response was a flame. Was it harsh? Yes. Was it how I felt? Yes.
Did I attack David as a person? No. Did I make a slur about the state of our public
education system? Definately. I don't think this was a flame. I think we need to be
careful we don't try to so polite that we compromise our position. I chose my words to
express my anger at something I didn't want to go unchallenged.
> Replies to E-mail, please--this is a bit off-topic.
If you know this is off-topic, why did you post it in the first place? As I was chastised
in a public forum, I'm taking this opportunity to rebut in public. I'm petty that way.
I will be content now to let the (public) sleeping dogs lie, provided you will do the same.
Looking forward to any replies you might send (s...@ltis.loral.com).
ObX: Q. How many mutants does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. None, it's burning out was simply the manifestation of
it's mutant power once it hit puberty. Now, it's
Dark Lightbulb.
Sam Powell, trying desperately not to go back to work.
s...@ltis.loral.com
Wanderer
> Anthony Rickey <mbko...@osk.threewebnet.or.jp> wrote in article
(snip)
> > David J. Warner wrote:
>
> > > The X-Men were created as an allegory for a prejudiced world. Think
of
> > > the status of black, Hispanic and Asian people in this country 33
years
> > > ago. Black people didn't have the right to vote in 1963. Today,
the
> > > GOP is hit hard when Colin Powell decides not to run for president.
<chuckle> Excuse me (or should that be X-cuse me?) but which X-Men are
you referring to? It was only with the second group that anyone from
outside the US was in it, and only then that they had any characters who
weren't Caucasian.
Less arguably, The Uncanny X-Men are an allegory of teenagers. The age of
puberty is one of the most fear-filled times in a person's life, and many,
getting bad information from other sources, expect that they will become
some sort of "freak".
Even more get no information ... then, when the hair starts growing in ...
ahem ... certain places ... and everywhere else, for that matter ... they
think they'll wind up looking more-or-less like the bounding Beast!
Also, teenagers are always on the outside looking in. Either they belong
to a gang, or they'd like to belong to a gang, or they have friends *and*
enemies, or they have a perfect life that's making them neurotic, or they
act like adults. Plenty of room there for the "X-Men as allegory" school
of thought.
Yours pensively,
The genetically strange,
Wanderer
wand...@why.net
wand...@whytel.com
Bishop
When did we find out about Bishop's past? re: Monet and Synch?
Jennifer Wood
isaa...@erols.com (Isaac Lewis) wrote:
>gog...@oak.cs.clemson.edu (Oglesby Gerald N) wrote:
>
>>Bishop isn't the child of Monet and Synch. Rather he and Shard are the
>>the brother and sister of M, Pennance, and Emplate. What I think is that
>>the horror that Emplate feels so bad about ist that his power shifted
>>Bishop, Shard and their Mother into the future. So Bishop grew up there
>>fighting his brothers hoards.
>
>Question:
>In UXM #288, Bishop says, "My grandmother told me stories.." Doesn't
>this directly contradict the assumptions Marvel has raised about
>Bishop and Shard being orphans? I thought that LeBeau (Gambit?)
>raised Bishop (unless Bishop was part of a futuristic version of
>Weapon X--that would explain a few other contradictions/memory
>lapses/berserker rages of Bishop's).
>
>
'perfect, rich, and seemly totally controll of her powers that it is
unnerving'. I believe that they are brother/sister or mother/son and that
Monet looks like their mother or is which answers the reason why Bishop
called her mother. Bishop was ophaned when he was a young boy and helped
in raising his sister. The only question is why he metions his
Grandmother when he can barely remember his mother.
As seen in AOA, we learned that Bishop can not be controlled by mentally
by the Shadow King and in X-Men Onslaught that Bishop seems to have an
unlimited amount of power and he also survives an attack that should of
killed the X-men EVEN enough to kill a thousand mutants he can
take:proving that he has more powers (like Monet) than absorbing and
rechanneling energy.
I believe that Gateway sent Bishop and Shard to the future because he
knew that if reality was twisted enough that one day Bishop would return
to stop the Prof X. The Irony of this is that Bishop grew up idolizing
Charles and as in Avengers #401 he falls for Charles's trick that he was
back and that Onslaught was destroyed. Bishop being one of the least
trusting people in the Marvel Universe should have seen though the ruse.
If Bishop was indeed chosen for being the X-Men savior then this might be
answered in the XSE Limited Series which will be released some time this
year or in the Onslaught story line (also look at Uncanny X-Men 96 for
some answers about Bishop, Shard, and Preacher).
Jennifer Wood
Jennifer Wood
Jennifer Wood
Robyn Goldstein
In article <01bb5f56.03ae4780$49fd...@wanderer.why.net>,
Wanderer <wand...@why.net> wrote:
[..]
>Less arguably, The Uncanny X-Men are an allegory of teenagers. The age of
>puberty is one of the most fear-filled times in a person's life, and many,
>getting bad information from other sources, expect that they will become
>some sort of "freak".
Is this some odd form of fan-fiction? Please pay attention to the
headers when you post - this no longer has (if it ever did) anything to
do with comic fanfiction. Thus, alt.comics.fan-fiction needs to be taken
out of the headers.
Thank you.
Note the followups.
Hawk
Daniel McEwen
Bishop wrote:
>
> When did we find out about Bishop's past? re: Monet and Synch?
We didn't. Anything you've read is pure speculation.
--
Daniel
djmc...@earthlink.net
Mountjoy, then Captain Britain, Excalibur #100
"...it's not as if you had to deal with Bishop and the blasted X-Men..."
"That's right. You're dealing with professionals here."